I am interested -- how many teachers/professors are in here and waiting? One!
I'd imagine a few, on this thread alone. For my part, I used to be a college professor and taught history and politics for the best part of twenty years.
It's only fraudulent if the Watch isn't actually broken. I, personally, see no fundamentally moral or legal problem with purposefully breaking a device and filing an insurance claim. Apple wouldn't offer the service if it wasn't profitable. Unless you can provide documentation to the contrary, I'm almost 100% sure that to do so does not violate the terms of service of AppleCare+.
Furthermore, if you paid $99 and never used the service in the two year window, I see no reason why you should feel guilty about facilitating that. After all, you still have to pay the service charge.
Give me a ****ing break.
No break for such a post, and spare us the exasperated expletives as a feeble substitute for expressing yourself properly.
Firstly, it is irrelevant whether or not a service that Apple offers is profitable. Profitability does not excuse fraud, and is neither excuse nor justification for undermining the whole principle of insurance, and claiming legitimately - or, in this instance, illegitimately - on that insurance.
Besides, the worship of capital, not to mention its acquisition, flaunting and retention that I see in some of the posts Across The Pond lead me to the regrettable conclusion that this - admiration for wealth and capital - is the default setting of much of the value system of US society, so what is the problem with Apple being profitable?
Actually, I beg to differ with you and with the content of your post, as, sad to relate, I see a great many problems with 'purposefully' breaking a device and then filing a claim to benefit from this situation. Morally, it is disingenuous, because it is a deliberate act which would serve to undermine the very basis under which one can seek to claim.
In essence, it is a claim based on a lie. You are hardly going to approach Apple and say to them: "Hey, I smashed this because I think I am owed a better device out of the proceeds of the care plan because you are so profitable you won't notice it financially when you pay out." That is the truth.
However, it is a lie to try to argue that it was damaged accidentally, when it wasn't, when, in fact, you yourself 'purposefully' broke the device in order to make a claim based on falsely represented information.
Moreover, from a practical perspective, any success enjoyed by such morally dubious claims can - and will - only serve to make it more difficult and more expensive for those with genuine claims to succeed in proving their claim. In other words, your actions, and the actions of those who think as you do, will serve to make it harder - and more expensive, as premiums and costs of something like Applecare can only increase as a result of these sort of actions, behaviours, and conduct - for those who buy Applecare to use it as it was intended to be used, such as, for situations like accidental damage.
Give you an expletive deleted break? (Cue other emoticons). No, never. Instead, I'll give you a tongue lashing for your entitled and morally warped stance. How's that? (Cue: Exasperated emoticon, and no expletives).
That is an online first. For me, at any rate. And it has left me - for once - somewhat speechless…….
The amount of butt hurt educators on here further proves just how far behind education truly is. These devices should be embraced and not shunned.
The days of a pen and paper test are numbered and it's absolutely ridiculous how afraid of the technology the education system is.
I can't speak about other countries, but here in America the education system is a joke. There's no knowledge left in a class room. It's test test test test, and you leave having learned nothing. Instead of giving knowledge teachers are FORCED to follow a curriculum that does nothing but prepare for a test.
Sad really. Embrace the tech. Use it to teach and don't be afraid of change.
I'm glad I'm finished with school. I wouldn't cheat with it, that's dishonest. But I sure would hope to see the technology embraced in a class room.
I think you are missing the point when you rail against what you have described as 'butt hurt educators'.
(As I'm not from the US, I'm not au fait with all of the argot found there; what does that mean by the way? Does that mean what I think it might mean?)
Anyway, as a 'butt-hurt', or otherwise smarting-in-the-transom, pulsing-aches-in-the-posterior former educator, it is not that educators 'fear' technology. (And, if they do 'fear' it, they simply need to be educated in how to use it). Rather, it is that they, rightly, fear fraud and cheating in the classroom or the exam hall.
And, in that weird Venn diagram describing the intersection of technological change where ethics, technology and control all collide, there is something of an arms race between those who seek to use the advantages conferred by early adopters and early masters of this technology, and those who can't avail of it for whatever reason.
Thus, the challenge is to ensure - not that the technological changes don't benefit those who have access to them, it has to, that is the nature of change - but that this technological change doesn't benefit them
unfairly, or
unjustly. That they are not allowed to benefit illegally, or fraudulently, or wrongly, from this technology.
These who have been able to take advantage of these technological changes need not necessarily simply be the technologically proficient, but may instead, be merely well off and cashing in on what their means - or their parents' mean - can afford.
In turn, this may be contested by those who wish to ensure that such advantages are not used to the unfair advantage those self-same early adopters. And that means, too, that a further challenge is trying to ensure that those given the task of policing, or enforcing all this, are themselves sufficiently up to speed on what the technological changes entail that they have some idea of what is going on.
In other words, just because you are an early adopter does not mean that you can, or should, be able to use this technology to cheat your way to success in exams, and that is what the educators on this thread have - rightly - expressed concerns about.
Besides, there is a reason employers, professional bodes, and universities, all accept exam results as some sort of credential or a standard that has become recognised.
It is because - in my country at least - the setting, sitting, and marking of exams is known to be meticulous, objective and scrupulous, which means that the results can be accepted as valid. It means that those who have achieved grades in state wide exams - or exams based on standards and tests that are recognised state wide - can be said to have attained some sort of standard in some areas which are relatively objectively recognised by the simple fact of having been awarded the degree, diploma, or certificate. They are seen as an objective statement of standards of academic achievement, however imperfect or flawed the educational system may be that gave rise to them.
That means that if a situation arises where technology can be used as a tool to aid fraud in sitting exams, much of the credibility of the credentials themselves will come under scrutiny.
Technology - in its place - is brilliant and transformative - in the classroom. And, in itself, and not just as an aid to learning, it has a huge role. But - and this is a key qualification and distinction - it is not the point of education. Rather, it is a tool, a facilitator, every bit as much as quills, or pen and paper, books, chalk, projectors, black boards, maps, tape recorders, any other means or device used to record, store, and retrieve data.
Re pen and paper, I see a huge future for them; in fact, as pen and paper constitute a much more reliable 'paper trail' than do some electronic records, I can see a situation where both will be used, and will need to be used, alongside one another for some time.
For that matter, I have never understood the derisive dismissal of 'pen and paper' (or any other, older system of recording, or of information storage) by devotees of a newer system. They both have their strengths; and weaknesses. I'd recommend that people learn to use both in their respective place, and learn to master each and every one of them.
